Construction and Building Materials 27 (2012) 91–96

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Use of polymer modified mortar in controlling cracks in reinforced concrete beams

S. Ahmad a, A. Elahi a, S.A. Barbhuiya b,⇑, Y. Farid a
a
University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan
b
University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation on the strengthening of existing cracked
Received 26 March 2011 RC members. The proposed technique consists of applying locally available polymer modified mortar in
Received in revised form 8 August 2011 cracked beams to increase the load carrying capacity. A total of six full scale RC beams were constructed
Accepted 8 August 2011
with the same material using the same mix and water–cement ratio. Initially, beams were tested until the
Available online 3 September 2011
development of cracks with width reached a limiting value of 1 mm. The beams were then repaired with
the application of polymer modified mortar technique. After 3 days of water curing the beams were
Keywords:
tested again and loaded till the failure. An improvement in the load carrying capacity was observed in
Cracks
Polymer modified mortar
the beams after the retrofitting. Results clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed technique
Reinforced concrete beams in repairing the RC members for strengthening the existing structures.
Deflection Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) is the most frequently applied
structural material because of its durability, which has been used
for many years to build a wide variety of structures from houses
to bridges. Cracking and spalling are the most common phenome-
non of deterioration of concrete. Cracks in concrete may occur in
both the plastic state as well as hardened state owing to the inter-
nal stresses which arise from the response of the constituent’s
materials to the external excitation as well as their environment
[1]. Beyond certain limit, cracks not only destroy the serviceability
of the structure, but also lead to exposure of reinforcement to the
environment resulting possible corrosion. Therefore, cracks may
cause considerable structural distress or a deficient in durability
[2–5]. Repair and rehabilitation of deteriorated concrete structures
are essential not only to use them for their intended service life but
also to assure the safety and serviceability of the associated com-
ponents so that they meet the same requirements of the structures
built today and in future. The repair of cracks depends not only on
the understandings of the causes, but also on the selection of a
suitable repair technique that takes the causes into account. Suc-
cessful long-term repair procedure must address the causes of
the cracks in addition to mitigate the cracks themselves [6,7]. Con-
ventional upgrading techniques often lead to heavy demolition,
lengthy construction time, reconstruction and relocation of inhab-
itant with all the related costs (direct and indirect). Huge indirect
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: School of Engineering, University of the West of
Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1418483451.
E-mail address: salim.barbhuiya@uws.ac.uk (S.A. Barbhuiya).
costs, the environmentally hostile approach and the hassle associ-
ated with conventional techniques are some of the major reasons
that discourage owners and custodians of buildings from their
any commitment regarding retrofitting.
A number of retrofitting strategies for RC structures have been
implemented in the past [8–10]. Concrete or steel jacket provision
to defective RC members improves the strength in addition to the
stiffness enhancement. The use of a shotcrete overlay is also a
common technique. This technique involves adding an extra rein-
forcement and a layer of new concrete around the existing ones
[11–13]. Although this technique may increase the strength, stiff-
ness and ductility several deficiencies are also encountered. Uncer-
tainty between the bond of new and existing concrete surface is
the major drawback. These are also proved to be time consuming,
labour intensive and may create a disruptive situation. In order to
avoid these possible situations, steel cage is used as an alternative
to the complete jacketing [14–16]. Non-shrink grouts are normally
filled in the available spaces between the steel cage and the exist-
ing concrete. A grout concrete or shotcrete cover may be provided
to ensure resistance against corrosion and fire. An improvement in
shear and flexural strength can also be achieved by the implemen-
tation of steel plate adhesion [17]. However, there is a need of
sound understanding of both the short and long-term behaviour
of the adhesive used in this case. In addition, reliable information
concerning the adhesion to concrete and steel is still to be
explored. Composite materials such as fibre reinforced plastic
(FRP) can also be used to retrofit the existing structures [18].
However, it is important to note that the use of FRP is often
dictated by strain limitations [19]. The large differences in strength
and coefficients of thermal expansion can result in bond deteriora-
tion and splitting of concrete [20].

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.023
92 S. Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 27 (2012) 91–96
Epoxy injection has also been used as repair material [6]. This is
an economical method of repairing non-moving cracks in concrete
structure and is capable of restoring the concrete to its pre-cracked
strength but the epoxy bonded systems also exhibit some disad-
vantages. For example the diffusion closeness, poor thermal com-
patibility with base concrete, sensitive to moisture on the
adherents at time for bonding, hazardous working environment
for the manual worker and the problem of minimum temperature
of assemble in cold climates. It is, therefore, of interest to replace
the epoxy adhesive with a mineral based bonding agent. Many
cementitious mortars contain cellulose ethers as an additive to im-
prove water retention and workability. However, after setting and
drying they will adhere poorly. In addition, cementitious mortars
are very hard, brittle and inflexible materials, whereas for many
applications flexible and deformable cementitious materials are
essential. Un-modified mortar made with Portland cement is nor-
mally used as repaired material in some field applications. How-
ever, these kinds of mortars have some disadvantages due to
inorganic nature of the material [21]. These disadvantages include
(1) low tensile, flexural, shear, impact and bond strengths, (2) large
drying shrinkage, (3) tendency to crack with changes in tempera-
ture and moisture, (4) relatively high moisture absorption and per-
meation, (5) low resistance to corrosive agents, and (6) rapid loss of
gauging water in thin surfacing by evaporation and substrate
absorption. Afridi et al. [22] examined that abundance of cracks
and pores were present in electron micrograph of a hardened
unmodified cement mortar.
Compatibility of the repair materials with the existing substrate
and durability under various conditions in service are of much
greater importance. Apart from bond and compressive strength
there are some other properties such as dimensional stability
(shrinkage), coefficient of thermal expansion, modulus of elasticity
and permeability which should be taken care during selection of a
repair material. The other factors like permeability, chemical and
electrochemical compatibility should also be considered [23].
Polymer modified mortars (PMM) are considered to overcome
these limitations [24]. Also from the viewpoint of sustainable
development in the construction industry, environment-conscious
PMM has been developed with a great interest in recent years.
The PMM with high performance, multi-functionality and sustain-
ability are expected to become the promising construction mate-
rials in Pakistan in the 21st century. Polymer modified mortars
(PPMs) are related to setting shrinkage control, thermal proper-
ties and temperature dependence; lightweight or porous nature
[24].
PPMs are environmentally friendly and can be classified as con-
struction materials that support the sustainability aspects of con-
struction. These types of cementitious materials address concerns
about saving natural resources, provide longevity to infrastruc-
tures, and protect the environment. Not only it strengthens the
RCC structural members but also makes a highly durable repair
along with excellent adhesion characteristic even to difficult sub-
strates [25]. The polymer films are responsible for improved
mechanical and durability characteristics of such systems that re-
sults in enhanced properties compared with conventional cement
mortar mixes [24]. As a consequence for almost all applications
in modern construction, the modification of cementitious mortars
with polymers is a must. Availability of polymers as redispersible
polymer powders has helped to develop prepackaged polymer
modified cementitious mixes requiring only water to be added at
construction site prior to application. Prepackaged polymer modi-
fied cementitious are highly helpful in improving the handling pro-
cedures and to avoid mixing error. Even then the people in
construction industry are reluctantly using this product in as such
form because only very little research data is available and argu-
ments are on cost factor.
The usage of PMM as strengthening material for pre-cracked RC
members is not well documented; no sufficient research data is
available on use of pre-packaged PPM except some successful case
histories of repair [26]. Such current case histories and results on
some of its other properties [22,27] encouraged to investigate per-
formance behaviour of the RC beams using PMM. The research re-
ported in this paper was aimed to develop a new retrofitting
technique, especially for a developing country like Pakistan, result-
ing more effective and cost benefiting repair and strengthening for
restoration of pre-cracked RC structures. The proposed technique
consists of application of PMM in cracked beams to increase its
load carrying capacity.
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Constituents of concrete
The cement used was Ordinary Portland cement complying with ASTM type 1.
Fine and coarse aggregates used were from the local sources in Pakistan. The coarse
aggregates consist of crushed stones having a maximum size of 10 mm. The phys-
ical properties of aggregates used are summarised in Table 1. Tap water was used in
manufacturing the concrete. Steel form-work (moulds) was used for casting beams.
Deformed steel Grade 40 for # 3 bars and Grade 60 for # 4 bars were used in the test
beams.
2.1.2. Materials for repair
Polymer modified mortar (PMM); a commercial prepackaged formulation
developed locally in Pakistan was used as repair material. This is a proportionate
mix of cement, sand, an organic film-forming re-dispersive polymer powder and
other related ingredients in appropriate ratios. A comparison of properties of PPM
with those of normal (unmodified) mortar properties are shown in Table 2. The
PMM into the crack was injected by following the procedure as laid down by the
manufacturer [25].
2.2. Mix proportions
The proportions of the concrete mixes for preparing RC beams were 1:2.4 by
mass of cement, sand and gravel respectively. The mix was designed to produce a
concrete with 28 days cylindrical strength of about 30 MPa. The water–cement ratio
(w/c) was kept 0.50. The workability of concrete was measured in terms of slump as
per ASTM C 143 [28] and a slump of 35 mm was noted. An average cylindrical com-
pressive strength of 30.5 MPa was achieved.
2.3. Preparation and curing of beams
Beams with a constant cross-section of 152.4 mm  304.8 mm and a length of
3353 mm were prepared in two categories, namely Category HB and Category GB.
There were three beams in each category, resulting altogether six full-scale beams.
Category HB had flexural reinforcement only, and these beams were designated as
HB-1, HB-2 and HB-3. Category GB had the flexural as well as shear reinforcement,
and these beams were designated as GB-1, GB-2 and GB-3. The cross-sections of the
beams for Category HB and Category GB are shown in Fig. 1a and b respectively.
Two days after casting, the forms were removed and the beams were wrapped in
wet hessian cloth. Curing was continued by keeping the hessian cloth wet until
the testing at the age of 28 days.
2.4. Testing procedure
RC beams were simply supported and loaded in flexure under a two points load-
ing conditions. The position of the loads and the set up of the machine are shown in
Fig. 2. The load was applied in increments till the cracks appeared to have a width of
1 mm which is a value well beyond the allowable limits defined by ACI 318-05 [29].
The crack width was determined using a non-destructive crack inspection device
(crack comparator). The load at crack width equal to 1 mm, mid-span deflections
and failure loads were recorded.
Table 1
Physical properties of aggregates used.
Aggregates Relative density (SSD condition) Water absorption (%)
Fine aggregate 2.63 1.20
Coarse aggregate 2.60 0.99
 S. Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 27 (2012) 91–96 93

Table 2 3. Results and discussion

Comparison of PMM with ordinary mortars [21].

Property PMM Ordinary Non-repaired beams tested till the cracks appeared to have a
mortar width of 1 mm are termed as controlled beam. After these damages
Unit weight (kg/l) 1.9 2.0 (in terms of cracks) occur, beams were repaired using PMM. Theses
Air content (%) 8.2 6.1 beams tested after repairing are known as repaired beams. The fail-
Water retention (%) 96.6 70
ure patterns of beams are shown in Fig. 3. The first crack in all the
Total pore volume (10 2 cm3/g) 10.3366 11.2531
28 day compressive strength (MPa) 320 234 beams formed approximately 10–50 mm from the centre line at
Maximum deflection (10 1 mm) 1.0 0.42 the region of maximum moment. This implies that yielding of steel
Maximum extreme tensile fibre strain (10 6) 1231 385 reinforcement started almost at the same region. Although each
Maximum tensile strain (10 6) 380 82 category had three RC beams with same cross-section and rein-
Flexural modulus of elasticity (104 MPa) 0.631 0.736
forcement details, average values were used in discussing the re-
Tensile modulus of elasticity (105 MPa) 0.227 0.263
Crack coefficient (10 2 cm2/kg) 0.020 0.037 sults. The slight variation displayed in the results of same
Adhesion in tension (MPa) 2.2 5.0 category beams appears to be due to the variation in the concrete’s
Water absorption (%) 9.3 12.2 modulus of rupture as well as in the repair materials. The lower
Water permeation (g) 6 66
values in the same category may be attributed to the poor mixing
Freeze thaw durability factor 72 10
91 day carbonation depth (mm) 10 21
and inadequate curing. As the first crack is normally very sudden
91 day chloride ion penetration depth (mm) 10.5 22.5 and may remain invisible for a certain period of time, the values re-
Apparent chloride ion diffusion coefficient 0.2 13.2 corded might not exactly be the same with the actual first crack
(10 9 cm2/s) loads. The increase in load and deflection at 1 mm crack width
and beyond this are summarised in Table 3. The discussion on re-
sults obtained is made in the following sections.

3.1. Effects of repairing material on beams of HB Category

2#3
304 mm 304 mm Experimental results regarding average enhancement in the
gained strength (in terms of load carrying capacity) and average
deflection of repaired beams of HB Category as compared with con-
trol beams is reported in Table 3. The deflections in control and re-
4#4 4#4 paired beams for Category HB (with flexural reinforcement only)
152 mm 152 mm are shown in Figs. 4a–4c. For HB Category, an average increase in
load by 22% over the control beams was observed to produce a
(a) Beam of HB Category (b) Beam of GB Category
crack width of 1 mm. This enhancement in load carrying capacity
Fig. 1. Cross-sections of beams. was increased by 20% as compared with control beam beyond
the development of crack of 1 mm width. In this Category the aver-
age deflection was 39% and 11% more than the control beams be-
fore and after development of crack of 1 mm width respectively.
Therefore, the capacity enhancement due to PMM application
was gained. However, the beams could not utilise their full mo-
Proving Ring
ment strength and failed due to the widening of shear cracks. It
can be observed that the relationship between the applied load
Hydraulic Jack
and the corresponding deflection is approximately linear up to
Load Distributor the cracking load. After cracking, the increase in deflection was
Strain Data Logger
noted; hence, causing deviation from linearity up to the failure.

3.2. Effects of repairing material on beams of GB Category

Once the existing cracks were structurally repaired by PMM

Deflection Gauge Strain Gauge
1015 mm 1015 mm 1015 mm
3048 mm
Fig. 2. Test specimens and loading arrangement.
Prior to injecting the PMM, repair area was prepared and reinforcement was
exposed by blast cleaning. It was insured that surface was free of oil, dirt, and
loose material. The repair area was saturated with water to develop a saturated
surface-dry condition. Standing water was removed with cotton cloth. PMM was
mixed with water to obtain a mix of standard consistency and then injected
into the crack according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cotton mats were
applied on the exposed layer of mortar within 10 min after finishing, and then
wet curing was started immediately. Curing was continued for a minimum of
3 days.
application, the RC beams of Category GB also behaved with im-
proved load carrying capacity. Experimental results regarding
average enhancement in the gained strength (in terms of load car-
rying capacity) and average deflection as compared with control
beams is reported in Table 3. The deflections in control and re-
paired beams for Category GB (with both shear and flexural rein-
forcement) are shown in Figs. 5a–5c. For this category, there was
an average increase (36%) in the load to produce a crack width of
1 mm as compared to the control beams and this enhancement
(in comparison) was observed up to 53% after the development
of crack width of 1 mm. The average deflection at 1 mm crack
width was 43% more than the control beams and this rate in
enhancement continued unchanged up to beam failure. This means
that the beams have utilised full or maximum flexural strength and
failure occurred due to both flexural and shear cracks. However,
the shear crack observed was thicker in size as compared to those
exhibited in the repaired beams of HB Category. It can be observed
94 S. Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 27 (2012) 91–96

Fig. 3. Various beams after failure.

Table 3 12
Comparison of repaired beams with control beams. Control beam
Beam ID Increase at 1 mm crack Increase beyond crack width1 mm Repaired beam
9
Deflection (mm)

width (%) (%)

Load Deflection Failure load Deflection
HB 22 39 20 11 6
GB 36 43 53 43

12
0
Control beam
0 20 40 60 80 100
Repaired beam
Load (kN)
9
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 4b. Deflections of control and repaired HB-2 beam.

6
12
Control beam
3 Repaired beam
9
Deflection (mm)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 6
Load (kN)

Fig. 4a. Deflections of control and repaired HB-1 beam. 3

that similar to the Category HB, there exists a straight line relation- 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
ship between the applied load and the corresponding deflection up
to the cracking load. However, after cracking, the deflections were Load (kN)
found to increase rapidly and hence, considerably deviation from
Fig. 4c. Deflections of control and repaired HB-3 beam.
linearity until the beam failed.

3.3. Efficiency of reinforcement pattern on capacity enhancement

A comparison of experimental values has been reported in Table
3 and these values are presented in Figs. 4a–5c. Experimental re-
sults show that a considerable increase in both the load carrying
capacity and the deflection was observed for repaired beams of
GB Category. The load carrying capacity beyond 1 mm crack at fail-
ure for GB Category (Figs. 4a–4c) was found to be more than 2.5
times than that of the GB Category (Figs. 5a–5c). However, this
enhancement was 64% before the development of 1 mm crack.
The increase in deflection was noted both before and after the
development of 1 mm crack in repaired beams of GB Category.
However, the increment before the development of 1 mm crack
(10%) is marginal as compared to that (291%) after the crack. This
could be due to absence of shear reinforcement and reinforcement
in the compressive zone. This is also in agreement to the failure
mode observed for GB Category where most of the repaired beams
failed after exhausting their moment capacity having reserved po-
tential for the shear capacity.
 S. Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 27 (2012) 91–96 95

12 4. Conclusions
Control beam
Repaired beam On the basis of the results obtained from this study, the follow-
9
ing conclusions can be drawn:
Deflection (mm)

6
(i) RC beams can be strengthened by repairing the existing flex-
ural and shear cracks with PMM application and this can
lead to a considerable (36%) increase in the load carrying
3 capacity.
(ii) Most of the beams have failed in shear, which represents
that PMM application injection is more effective for flexural
0 control of cracks. One of the beams has failed due to opening
0 20 40 60 80 100
of repaired cracked which strongly suggests that application
Load (kN) of PMM is also efficient in the repair of cracked concrete
structures.
Fig. 5a. Deflections of control and repaired GB-3 beam.
(iii) Repaired RC beams of Category GB (with flexural and shear
reinforcement) showed more stiffness than the beams of
12 Category HB with flexural reinforcement only.
Control beam (iv) Application of PMM exhibited no improvement in the stiff-
Repaired beam ness of repaired beams for both the categories except at ini-
9 tial stage.
Deflection (mm)

It is worthwhile to mention here that in this study when load

6
from the beams was removed the crack width decreased to a cer-
tain value (less than 1 mm) due to which less PMM was applied to
3 crack, but in a practical field when the members will remain under
permanent loading condition, more PMM may be required to inject
in the cracks and more efficient results may be obtained.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Load (kN) References

Fig. 5b. Deflections of control and repaired GB-2 beam. [1] ACI Committee 224 1R-93. Causes, Evaluation and repair of cracks in concrete
structures. Concrete Repair Manua, 2nd Ed. Published jointly by ACI
International, Building Research Establishment, Concrete Society and
International Concrete Repair Institute in the year 2003, ISBN: 0-87031-105-
12 0, 1998, vol. 1. 1: 485–550.
[2] Gergely P, Lutz LA. Maximum crack width in reinforced concrete flexural
Control beam
members. Causes, mechanism and control of cracking in concrete, SP-
Repaired beam
9 20. Michigan: American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills; 1968. p. 87–117.
Deflection (mm)

6
3 bridge decks. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(1):1–13.
0 [7] Issa CA, Debs P. Experimental study of epoxy repairing of cracks in concrete.
0 20 40 60 80
Load (kN)
Fig. 5c. Deflections of control and repaired GB-3 beam.
It was noted that For HB-1, the repair technique was effective
for shear cracks. Shear failure was observed by a quite new devel-
oped shear crack for the HB-1 repaired beam rather than the re-
paired cracks. Shear failure was also observed for GB-3, even
though they had the shear reinforcement. It shows the effective-
ness of modified mortar technique for flexural cracks.
RC beams of Category GB with PMM application exhibited the
same or slightly higher initial stiffness than their counterpart con-
trol beams. This proved that the applications of PMM helped to ‘‘re-
store’’ their initial pre-cracked stiffness. However, only repaired
HB-1 beam of Category HB showed a considerable stiffness after
50% of the load caused a crack width of 1 mm in the controlled
beams. Also no improvement in stiffness was observed by using
this retrofitting technique. Additional tests on RC beams are
needed to verify the results reported in this paper and to identify
other parameters which might affect the PMM application.
[3] Frosch RJ. Another look at cracking and crack control in reinforced concrete.
ACI Struct J 1999:437–42.
[4] Shash AA. Repair of concrete beams – a case study. Constr Build Mater
2005;19(1):75–9.
[5] Craeye B, Geirnaert M, Schutter GD. Super absorbing polymers as an internal
curing agent for mitigation of early-age cracking of high-performance concrete
[6] ACI Committee E706. Structural crack repair by epoxy injection (ACI RAP
Bulletin 1). Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2003. 5pp.
100 Constr Build Mater 2007;21(1):157–63.
[8] David E, Djelal C, Buyle-Bodin F. Repair and strengthening of reinforced
concrete beams using composite materials. In: 2nd international PhD
symposium in civil engineering, Budapest; 1998.
[9] Kachlakev D, McCurry DD. Behavior of full-scale reinforced concrete beams
retrofitted for shear and flexural with FRP laminates. Composites
2000;31:445–52.
[10] Toutanji H, Zhao L, Zhang Y. Flexural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams
externally strengthened with CFRP sheets bonded with an inorganic matrix.
Eng Struct 2006;28:557–66.
[11] Sabnis GM. Seismic rehabilitation of concrete structures. American Concrete
Institute, Special publication 160, 1996. 300 pp.
[12] Chapdelaine F, Beaupre D. Pumping fiber-reinforced wet-mix shotcrete.
Shotcrete 2000;2(2):36–7.
[13] Heere R, Morgan DR. Determination of early-age compressive strength of
shotcrete. Shotcrete 2002;4(2):28–31.
[14] Dritsos S, Pilakoutas K. Repair/strengthening techniques for structurally
damaged RC columns. In: Proceedings of the 5th US national conference on
earthquake engineering, vol. 3, Chicago, IL; 1994. p. 667–76.
[15] Georgopoulos T, Dritsos SE. A steel jacketing technique for strengthening RC
columns. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on earthquake
engineering, Vienna, Austria; 1994. p. 2275–80.
[16] Prasad NP. Enhancement of flexural capacity of undamaged RC column by a
composite steel caging technique. M.Tech thesis, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur, India; 2005.
[17] Hashim SA. Adhesive bonding of thick steel adherents for marine structures.
Marine Struct 1999;12:405–23.
96 S. Ahmad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 27 (2012) 91–96
[18] Said AM, Nehdi ML. Use of FRF for RC frames in seismic zones: Part I,
Evaluation of FRP beam-column joint rehabilitation techniques. Appl Compos
Mater 2004;11(4):205–26.
[19] Ghobarah A, Said A. Seismic rehabilitation of beam–column joints using FRP
laminates. J Earthquake Eng 2001;15(1):113–29.
[20] Karbhari VM. Materials considerations in FRP rehabilitation of concrete
structures. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE 2001;13(2):90–7.
[21] Young JF, Afridi MUK. Innovative cement, Innovations in Portland cement
manufacturing. In: Javed I Bhatty, Miller F MacGregor, Kosmatka Steven H,
editors. Skokie (IL): Portland Cement Association; 2004 [chapter 9.3].
[22] Afridi MUK, Ohama Y, Demura K, Iqbal MZ. Development of Polymer particles
in powdered and aqueous polymer modified mortars. Cem Concr Res
2003;33:1715–21.
[23] Mirza J, Mirza MS, Lapointe R. Laboratory and field performance of polymer-
modified cement-based repair mortars in cold climates. Constr Build Mater
2002;16:365–74.
[24] Ohama Y. Polymer-based admixtures. Cem Concr Compos 1998;20:189–212.
[25] Schneider SI, Dewacher DR, Palmer JG. Redispersible polymer powders for
tough, flexible cement mortars. In: Polymer-modified hydraulic-cement
mixture, STP 1176, ASTM, Philadelphia; 1993. p. 76–89.
[26] Afridi MUK, Khan AH, Rizwan SA, Khaskhali GB. Polymer-modified mortar
proves effective construction material – field and laboratory observations. In:
Proceedings of the 69th annual session of Pakistan engineering congress,
Lahore, Pakistan; 2005. p. 181–91.
[27] Kardon JB. Polymer modified concrete: review. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE
1997;9(2):85–92.
[28] ASTM C 143-78, Standard test method for slump of Portland cement concretes.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia (PA), Part 14; 1979. p. 97–8.
[29] ACI Committee 318-05. Building code requirements for structural concrete
and commentary. MI: Farmington Hills, American Concrete Institute;
2005.